A Modest Proposal: Give Cathevangelicals What They Really Want

The main reason the Cathevangelicals demand a mother's death so that the fetus can survive and make women carry to term even if the baby is their brother or sister is that these people are sick and unhealthy individuals. Unlike Buddhists, who know that suffering is universal and a key to enlightenment, the Evangelichristers seek out suffering in emulation of their pale Galilean god. Perhaps if we had a crucifixion festival, we could send a few on their way, hire a few jobless to do the hammering, participants buy the timber and the nails. Notice how phoney proud Sarah Palin was, strutting around onstage and holding that Down's baby like it was a prop in a stage play. Which of course it was: these slugs are not above using their deformities to curry the votes of like-minded sinners. This is what the whole concept of sin is all about: you let the priests and pastors tell you what you're doing wrong, and you make amends. The only possible reason people so debase themselves is that they fear death. I am hoping there is an afterlife, so that I can spend it with Darwin, Galileo, Hitchens, and Einstein. In that other place, I would be bored to tears.

I think all sorts of imperfect babies should be carried to term UNLESS the life of the mom is threatened. That is because I also support adoptions. And I think the Rick Santorums of this world should be forced to adopt all of the little unwanted babies, don't you? That is because, as the late great George Carlin observed, these religious bigots are very eager and aggressive in protecting you when you are nine months out and ending when born. To quote Carlin, "You're then on your own." I think that if the Rick Santorums and Sarah Palins are going to demand that all babies be carried to term and delivered alive, then the Santorums and Palins of this world should honor the mothers' desire not to keep them. The pols should adopt all such children, even if they are born on crack

They've already done so. I wonder if Santorum was in the House or Senate when the Terry Schaivo affair had that little s.o.b. Tom DeLay bloviating about basketcase rights. I should like to know Sanitarum's role in that theocratic misuse of government by both houses, and obtain his vote and what sort of speech, if any, did he deliver? The debate was laced with Christian dogma.

Sick and unhealthy (mentally) - agreed. Trotting the disabled child around like a prop - agreed. What's worse with the "child as a prop" scenario, is that they all feed on each other.

"Ohhh, look. Jesus blessed you with a baby who has Down's Syndrome and spina bifida." And whose life expectancy is 3 years before a miserable death.

"Yes, isn't he the cutest thing? And, aren't I special for being a parent to a disabled child?"

"Ohhh, yes. You're such a good parent. Not like that Susie who had an abortion (audible gasp!)." Forgetting, of course, that absent that procedure, Susie could have easily died.

"Had she given up her life for the child, she would have been in heaven. Now, Susie will rot in hell for what she did."

"You're right. But there is another little angel with God." And all the good little theists cackle about how moral they are compared with everyone else.

I can't speak to Protestantism, since I was raised as a Catholic. But in that latter cult, the more suffering there was, the better. "Give up your pain and suffering to the Lord, who died for your sins." I used to hear that crap, ad nauseum, until I left the cult as a teenager. I think part of the whole "kill the mother on behalf of a blastocyst" crap is one's life is supposed to be misery, suffering, and guilt. Yeah, guilt - the gift that keeps on giving. Especially if you're not miserable enough or suffering enough (which you never are). The more misery, guilt and shame you have here on earth, the greater the reward when you take the long dirt nap. It's really a freaking sick form of psychosis. Be miserable during the only life you actually have, so you can be rewarded in an eternal Disney-like theme park that doesn't exist.

But I digress. Adoption? Are you crazy? First, the clergy would never share the comforts they enjoy off the proceeds they rob from the poor, or do the work necessary to actually raise a child. And second, do you really want some sick fuck likes Santorum raising anymore children, and totally screwing up their lives?

Pat, please note that the title of the piece includes a tongue in cheek reference to the great Jonathan Swift, whose original modest proposal suggested that a famine in Ireland could easily be alleviated by the cooking and eating of children. And no, I certainly would not want Santorum, Bachmann or Newtie (Mutt Rumney, too) bringing up any child, but I was pokin' fun.

Sorry about the diatribe, James. I, too, am familiar with Swift's Modest Proposal. Especially, since the form of Catholicism in which I was raised was the Irish version. Just got some bad news today about my sister, a devout Catholic. Her ex was a drunken, woman beating, piece of worthless skunk shit who moved out on her and in with another women, and left her to raise their 4 children by herself. Well, his whore died, and the slut's kids are throwing him out of the house after 15 years. She's letting the drunk move back in with her. Can't do a divorce, since that would mean she can't take communion. As I said, guilt - the gift that keeps on giving. Ruin your life on earth for a cloud, a white robe, a harp, and the opportunity to praise Big Brother for all eternity. A diseased sickness promulgated by women hating pederasts.

I think the thing with Gingrich was that he was not catholic in his first 2 marriages, and they were not sanctioned in the catholic church. Callista is his first marriage as a catholic, so that's OK. It would be interesting to all protestants to know that they are considered by the catholic church to be fornicators..... maybe Santorum can add that to his crusade.

Thank you thank you! I had not known that they are set up to work that way. The irony would be that Mutt Rumney is free to divorce then join the RCC. Do you think they would have ex-communicated Ging Rich if he'd been a Cathodelick all along?

They might have, although i think the Catholic bosses have a history of convenient annulments when it works for them. Not giving a convenient annulment, of course, is what gave Henry the VIII an excuse to break from the catholic church, resulting in a phenomenal loss of wealth and power in England and its empire. Another example is Pope Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia), who wasn't married but did have long-standing affairs resulting in multiple children. He is thought to have bought the papacy, and once he was pope, he arranged marriages of his children to forge alliances. He had Lucrecia's first marriage annulled- she had to be declared a virgin in order for that to happen, which was interesting since she was pregnant at the time. Her brother, the Cardinal, had her lover, the father of her baby, murdered, along with the chamber maid who helped arrange their assignations. Her next husband was strangled, but her 3rd marriage seems to have lasted longer.

I think people could have the right to bring their unsurvivable fetuses to term or keep human vegetables alive indefinitely as long as they and only they pay for it in a globally just system.

For example, every citizen of planet earth could share in the birth rights available (limited by the carrying capacity of Earth) by investing in the ideals/values of their choice. The invested group would be solely responsible for their collective medical and institutional care, and their offspring would be collectively obligated to support them in old age with the values they chose. Every collective would only get a prorated number of birth permits, keeping the overall population sustainable. When the body politic is no longer a commons, selective pressures would favor groups who choose wisely. If you opt for a group that has low standards, others will get to have crack babies instead of you having a child. If there are a limited number of rights to reproduce over which couples compete, the values you commit to will impact your family size. It won't impact families in competing collectives.

Groups that selected for healthy intelligent offspring would thrive. Groups that selected for spina bifida and achephalic babies would have heavier tax burdens, as the remaining members of the generation would have to make up for the terminally ill young the collective chose to have instead of healthy children.

Values wouldn't have to be imposed from a hierarchy or from a democracy. The world would have to be highly connected, but selection could act as a market force. Computer programs would spring up predicting the costs to the individual of every group value, not only monetary but raising or lowering your chances of reproducing. Second and later generation members of Cathevangelical groups would be less competitive as prospective mates, because they'd come with lower chances of having viable children, with higher medical bills, and a heavier tax to support their elderly. By the fourth or fifth generation, demands to switch out of fundamentalist/authoritarian religious groups (and values) or to restructure the values within those groups would rise spontaneously.

It all comes down to not exporting the consequences of your own choice to everyone else.